All posts for the day January 3rd, 2018

Dang it, no more trolling on the internets.

greatmiddleway.wordpress.com

The internet is, by nature, plural. When entering it, we know that we’re bound to encounter many ideas, some of which we will not share. Especially in religious matters, it is important to respect others, and simply move on when encountering a post with which we disagree.

If we feel the urgency to offer a negative comment, what is the source of that feeling? Do we really want to help? Do we need to correct another’s ignorance? When we assume the role of custodian of orthodoxy, we proclaim that our understanding is superior to everyone else’s.

We are not on the internet to impose our views, but to share them freely with those of similar inclinations.

Chinese tanks, soldiers, and military trucks have been gathering on the border in preparation for a war. The Chinese military was quickly rushed to the border they share with North Korea after being told to get “ready for war.”

According to the Daily Star,the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) forces have been building up military assets in the cover of the night around the Tumen River in Yanji city, Jilin province, which borders North Korea. Chinese commanders are reported to have recently conducted the so-called “war ceremony” – urging their troops to be ready to fight as columns of PLA trucks have been pictured on the move near Yanji City which is close to the triple border between China, Russia, and North Korea.

China is North Korea’s only traditional ally and has been coming under pressure to tackle Kim Jong-un from the US. Sources cited in Chinese media have claimed that the PLA is “preparing for war on the Korean Peninsula.” China would be expected to use its military forces to help quell a flood of refugees should the United States initiate an attack North Korea and chubby dictator, Kim Jong-Un. Beijing is also expected to quickly move into the rogue state to seize assets, and potentially have China join the war on the side of North Korea once the US begins a so-far theoretical attack.

Zhang Liangui, a professor of international strategic research at the Communist Party’s Central Party School said, “it is highly possible that there is a conflict between North Korea and the United States now. What China does here is to be prepared for any kind of situation happening on the Korean Peninsula.”

Share this:

Like this:

Vladimir Putin gave another of his end-of-year press conferences last week—nationally televised events consisting of an always-curious combination of Q&A, opinionating, offhand banter, observations on a wide range of domestic and international affairs, and the Russian president’s appraisal of his own record.

On foreign-policy questions, many Russians stand shoulder-to-shoulder with their leader.

Vladimir Putin gave another of his end-of-year press conferences last week—nationally televised events consisting of an always-curious combination of Q&A, opinionating, offhand banter, observations on a wide range of domestic and international affairs, and the Russian president’s appraisal of his own record.

This was his 13th such outing and weighed in at three hours and 42 minutes. Putin again had some interesting things to say, though one could scarcely glean this from Western press reports, and certainly not from the US media. Beelzebub is never deserving of serious attention.

Russians I respect have sometimes told me that, while some features of Putin’s domestic performance merit criticism, on the foreign-policy side their support is more or less shoulder-to-shoulder with Putin. I view the distinction as important; it seems to go some way to explaining Putin’s standing in opinion polls, which hovers consistently above 80 percent. He had plenty to say last Thursday on Russian politics, the economy, the domestic opposition, and other such matters. I will leave those questions aside as the business of Russians: It is when Putin speaks on global affairs that it is everyone’s business.

Here are four topics Putin addressed last Thursday that are worth thinking about. I draw from a pared-down list:Syria. Putin did not distinguish between the Islamic State and other terrorist groups, which is in keeping with Russia’s policy since it intervened at the Assad government’s request two years ago. But he spoke about post–conflict challenges, notably. While most terrorist groups have been defeated, he said, there is a mop-up phase to complete. Russian forces have begun to withdraw, thus, but some will remain. This is what one would have expected. He had no comment on the Pentagon’s recent announcement that US security forces will remain on Syrian soil indefinitely.

The interesting part of Putin’s remarks on Syria, at least to me, concerned Russia’s responsibilities now that the war is over. He talked about the welfare of Syrians as essential to preventing new terrorist outbreaks, about resettling refugees, about working with foreign partners, about the peace process. “All the parties involved should resist the temptation to take advantage of short-term political goals,”

Putin asserted. This is a healthy handful of tasks on which Russia now must prove out. Especially for those who supported Moscow’s defense of Damascus to prevent Syria’s collapse into another Libya or Iraq, it is time to watch the Russians. This will be their most importance performance since, by way of the Syria conflict, they have assumed a more influential role in the region.

Ukraine. Putin’s remarks on the state of affairs in Ukraine are, of course, wholly at odds with what Washington puts out on the subject. But they are not at odds with reality: Washington is. As Putin calmly noted, the number-one obstacle to a settlement in Ukraine is, as it has been for three years come next February, the profoundly corrupt government installed in Kiev after the American-cultivated coup in 2014.

I say three years next February because it was then the settlement framework known as Minsk II (for the city where it was negotiated and signed) was put in place.

Those terms remain Putin’s point of reference. They appear to remain the European Union’s, too. Washington, which the Europeans and Russia excluded from the Minsk talks for the wisest of reasons, does not seem to have a point of reference, busy as it is pretending there is progress on the corruption front and that Kiev is not dependent on a frightening collection of militias, many of them led by neo–Nazi fanatics.

These groups still present the threat of a massacre in the eastern provinces, as Putin reminded his audience. He spoke with notable ease of Russian assistance in those regions, suggesting this can end when they are capable of self-defense.

We would do well to understand where the force of inertia lies in Ukraine. This was Putin’s topic. A settlement in Ukraine remains possible via the framework fixed three years ago. Let us not forget this. Moscow has not deviated from Minsk II—another point worth noting. The spoilers are in Kiev, and behind them are those in Washington, which continues to encourage the irresponsible behavior of the Poroshenko government and other Ukrainian elites.

The Sino–Russian alliance. The growing bond between Moscow and Beijing is no secret, but it is interesting that Putin noted it as prominently he did. “I have full confidence that cooperation with China is beyond any political agenda,” he said. “We’ll remain strategic partners for a long period of time.”

In this he singled out a couple of high-profile agreements just reached: a natural-gas project providing for Russian shipments to China via an Arctic port now under construction and a high-speed-transit corridor that will connect China to Russia and, through Russia, China to Europe.

Did someone say “One Belt and One Road”? Putin did, actually. He welcomed it as consonant with Russia’s development strategy and for the place it assigns Russia as a bridge between East and West. Belt and Road’s momentum, unmistakable now, seems to gain speed almost by the day.

One other point worth noting in this line: Putin appeared to echo Xi Jinping’s speech at the 19th Communist Party Congress two months ago, in which the Chinese president suggested that the mainland’s political economy—the old “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” a phrase I have never much liked—should be seen as a model for other developing nations to emulate. This is “post–Western world” rhetoric, and there is a lot to it. But one waits for the Russian leader to square this thought with his remark that there is no political agenda attaching to the Sino–Russian alliance. It sounds to me as if there is.

The Eurasian Economic Union. It has long been common to scoff at Putin’s EAEU efforts, precisely in the way many commentators—though fewer as time goes by—now deride China’s Belt and Road Initiative. First they laugh at you, later on you win, as Gandhi is said to have observed (but apparently did not). The guts of the EAEU, apart from the Russian Federation, are two Central Asian republics (Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan) and two other former Soviet republics (Armenia and Belarus). Curious timing:

The day before Putin’s press conference, Iranian media quoted a senior trade official in Tehran as saying Iran will formally join the union next February. If this comes to be, the EAEU will gain considerably in substance and profile.

Putin rolled out some technocratic statistics in response to questions about the EAEU’s progress. The aggregate GDP growth rate among members, for instance, now exceeds Russia’s. (Russian growth in 2017 will come in at 1.7 percent, a rebound from contractions of 2.8 percent and 0.2 percent in 2015 and 2016 respectively.) But there is a more salient way to view the EAEU’s fortunes: It is hard to imagine a more congruent fit with China’s Belt and Road Initiative.All worth noting, even if one must read beyond the American press to find virtually any of it.

I wish all readers contented, spirit-lifting holidays. I would say holidays from Russiagate rubbish, but let us not get carried away with year-end dreams. As to the new year, may we all keep our eyes wide open, finding light amid all the darkness.

The story about: a secret Pentagon UFO research group; a US fighter jet that encountered a UFO off the coast of San Diego; and the recovery of “UFO metals.”

The Times broke the story, and then it quickly went global.

On the subject of UFOs, that never happens.

But it did.

Furthermore, the Times expressed no doubts about the information it was disclosing. There wasn’t the usual “he said, he said” treatment.

No detractors and harsh critics were quoted. This was a straight-from-the-Pentagon to the Times pipeline.

The Times story had all the earmarks of a government gift, not a leak.

This, too, never happens.

But it did.

The conclusion: the Pentagon wanted this story to come to light. Someone high up in the Pentagon, or someone outside the Pentagon, with major clout, gave the green light to the Times. He assured the Times the story was real. Perhaps he even gave an “order” to release the information.

As discussion and vetting of the UFO story occurred at the Times, before they went to print, the overriding and decisive factor was: “somebody big wants this to move forward.” Case closed.

But we shouldn’t assume the motive for disclosure was, at the top, generous and benign and innocent. Because we’re talking about the Pentagon and the CIA, the people who always have a concealed agenda.

If they give the public a few bread crumbs, or even a steak, there is a 15-course meal behind that, and the meal is never served.

Long-time UFO researcher, Grant Cameron, has pointed out that the American strategy for hiding secrets (for decades) has been: partial disclosure. Periodically, now and then—“Here’s a small piece. Chew on it.”

This is the US government approach.

Except—the recent Pentagon offerings haven’t been leaked via some small-press book published in a print shop—they’ve been shot out of information-guns directly to the most prestigious mainstream news outlet in the world: the New York Times.

That’s different. Very different.

And just now, the Times has published two more UFO articles. The first, by senior reporter Dan Barry, is headlined: “Dad Believed in UFOs. Turns Out He Wasn’t Alone.” Barry’s father was a veteran UFO watcher. He died before the Pentagon finally admitted UFOs are real. That’s the hook of the article. It’s a human interest piece. And it’s overwhelmingly positive re UFOs. Again, you don’t see this sort of thing from the Times—not ever—but there it is.

“UFOs: Is This All There Is?” is the second Times piece, by Dennis Overbye. It’s a soft back and forth: something is happening in the sky but we don’t know what it is. No harsh naysaying. No nastiness.

All this could very well mean that what is being hidden, now, is much larger than what has been hidden in the past. For example, new technological discoveries and advances have been made in the areas of propulsion systems and energy production, beside which the old discoveries pale by comparison.

In that case, the latest partial disclosures needed to be stronger, in terms of their impact. Impact as diversion from the deeper truth.

And the NY Times would carry the ball.

Who was the paper’s main source for the breaking UFO disclosure? Luis Elizondo, the man who headed up the Pentagon UFO program, until he resigned. Elizondo is now part of rock musician Tom Delonge’s team at his newly formed To the Stars Academy. Elizondo’s new association hardly qualifies as a “good source” for an outlet like the Times.

Further, anyone who reads Elizondo’s bio at the Academy website would have reason to pause for thought:

“Luis Elizondo is a career intelligence officer whose experience includes working with the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, the National Counterintelligence Executive, and the Director of National Intelligence. As a former Special Agent In-Charge, Luis conducted and supervised highly sensitive espionage and terrorism investigations around the world. As an intelligence Case Officer, he ran clandestine source operations throughout Latin America and the Middle East.”

Excuse me? The number one mainstream news operation on the planet accepts what Elizondo is saying at face value? On the verboten subject of UFOs? When everyone knows career intelligence officers are trained to lie at the drop of a hat?

The Times has suddenly become a “UFO site?”

Having received Elizondo’s assertions, the Times would have gone to its long-time sources at the Pentagon, and the Word would have come back: this is rock solid fact. Which, again, tells you the Pentagon wanted this story to be published. Strongly wanted.

If Donald Trump holds a water bottle in two hands and puckers his lips as he takes a sip, the Times would wonder aloud whether he was suffering from Alzheimer’s. But all of a sudden, on the topic of UFOs, the story the Times is being fed is honest and accurate, and there is no need to consult the usual experts who provide “balanced” criticism and “negative reactions.”

One conclusion: the Times is prepared to publish more UFO stories. Quotes from other military/intelligence sources. Unless the blowback from rival news outlets is too severe.

Another inference: the Times already has other videos of UFOs and other “irrefutable” interviews in the can.

Whatever they eventually publish, no matter how shocking, it will be a very, very small fragment of what the government (and those who control the government) is hiding.

If, five years ago, you polled the most competent and knowledgeable independent UFO researchers, and asked them whether they thought the New York Times would ever publish a major positive UFO story, who among them would have predicted what we are seeing now?

Finally, this could now happen: someone at the Times, a senior editor, or even the publisher, goes to the Pentagon and says, “Look, we’re begging off. We’ve done our job. We did what you told us to do. But now, other news operations are going to have to carry the freight. We can’t afford to incur a stain on our reputation. We broke the barrier. You’ll have to find other people to move your story forward…”

But the Times will forever be remembered as the first—they took their marching orders and delivered. They fronted for, and sold, a limited hangout, against all odds.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Average yearly compensation for top 100 CEOs is now $10.4 million

Canada’s top CEOs will earn an average worker’s annual salary before lunch on the first work day of the year, according to a new report. (CHAINFOTO24/Shutterstock)

​Shortly before 11 a.m. today, the average top-earning CEO in Canada will have already earned — in less than one work day — what the average worker makes in an entire year, says a new study.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report examined the 100 highest-paid CEOs at TSX-listed companies for 2016.

Turns out, those corporate executives had a stellar year. Their average annual compensation hit a record $10.4 million — that’s more than 200 times an average worker’s salary of $49,738, says the report.

It also found that top CEOs got a big pay hike. Their average compensation rose eight per cent compared to 2015, whereas an average worker’s salary rose by just 0.5 per cent.

“CEOs continue, year after year, to increase that gap between them and the average worker,” said David Macdonald, report author and senior economist with the CCPA, a think-tank that studies economic inequity issues.

“[They are] now making your average pay prior to your second cup of coffee,” he said. “In a couple years — five years, maybe — CEOs will make your pay before breakfast.”

Big bonuses

Macdonald combined base salary plus compensation, such as pensions and the granting of company shares, to tally up CEO income totals.

He found that, on average, base pay made up only 11 per cent of a CEO’s compensation. The lion’s share came from share grants (33 per cent), bonuses (26 per cent) and stock options (15 per cent).

For 2016, Valeant Pharmaceuticals CEO Joseph Papa scored the top spot, earning more than $83 million in total compensation. Almost $56 million of that came from share grants.

Magna CEO Donald Walker came in second, earning $28.6 million, most of which ($26.4 million) was the result of share grants and bonus pay.

Joe Papa, CEO of Valeant Pharmaceuticals, scored first place on CCPA’s list of the 100 top-earning CEOs in Canada. (Christinne Muschi/Reuters)

Macdonald says one way to help shrink the inequality gap is for the federal government to tax top earners at a higher rate.

He also wants Ottawa to close tax loopholes such as the stock option deduction, a tax perk where profits from stock options are taxed at a lower rate compared to regular income. Many rich CEOs benefit from the perk.

“I don’t think that people object to CEOs making more than average workers, but they make over 200 times more and the gap is increasing,” said Macdonald.